Response Strategies Nuclear Attack on Ally

[RubiconNZ]

OK, this is something I have long wondered and discussed with my father for ages. A rogue nation or rouge( ) angered at US policy around the world etc, knowing that a Nuclear strike is out of the question on CONUS due to well total oblitertion, decides to act against its number 2 or 3 ally at the moment. A city in range = Brisbane. ICBMS launched US detects it within what 3 minutes has its trajectory pinned, phone call to Canberra, The city of Brisbane is hit with a 150 KT weapon, mass casulties probably 250,000 to start with of cause escalating deaths as the hours go by.

Now my question is even with a statment form the offending country that it was a warning against american imperialism ad there allies. How would the US respond?

The Anzus though no obligations are stated in the treaty, basically put AUS and NZ(not now of course) under the Umbrella, how would the US retaliate. I do not believe the United States would use nuclear weapons against that country, espscially if it meant war on say the Korean pennisular or say against a bigger neigbour. (unlikely at this stage) Comments? and if no Retaliation option should Australia not build its own nuclear weapons? We certainly have everything we need.

 

[Stryker001]

Aus

Australia is basically a democratic state of America in my opinion, WW2 made sure of that so I don't think anybody would launch an attack on the Australian mainland.

I supported Australia in East Timor, because Australia supports the US even when they are wrong. (Bill Clinton)

Australians are just like Texans, they don't like to be pushed around either, George W to Australian NASA Astronaut Andy Thomas.

 

[Rich]

Australia is NOT a US state! It is however a country we have defense obligations with and without question the rouge state that launched such an attack would in short order receive a devastating response from American nuclear forces.

Our NATO allies would recieve the same back up. As would Japan and South Korea. Are they all "US States"? Before any of our allies start spreading this "were all just US states" nonsense just remember one phrase, "divided we fall".

 

[RubiconNZ]

Reprisals

My concearns would, well the US still gets stick for being the only country to use Nukes, justified or not, I mean Okinawa convinces me all I need with both military and civillian casultiees, but mass civilian casulties as well as awful are a real sticky wicket, would the US risk well a huge amount to retalitate, I would hope so but...

 

[kostas-zochios]

I don't believe the US would retaliate with nuclear weapons. I think this would grow the antiamerican feelings that a big part of the world has and it would destroy the US diplomatically. Also the fallout of a nuclear explosion could affect nearby countries and again destroy USA in the diplomatic field. I believe the most logical and most probable retalliation would be a masssssive air strike using conventional weapons. :ar15

 

[Rich]

Without question we would retaliate with nuclear weapons if an ally, with which we have such legal requirements, was attacked with them. The Soviet Union never attacked NATO because it believed we would use them even without their "first use".

Even Greece , A country we have poor "practical relations" with, is still covered under NATO treaty and without question if attacked by Iranian missiles "just as an example" there would be a NATO counter-response. I believe this response wouldn't be tit-for-tat but instead would be payback as well as a massive attack on Iranian WMDs.

And even if your someone who doesn't believe in Democracy, or freedom, or the fact that we Yanks love the bloody Aussies, at least believe in the fact that without such a response every defense treaty we would have would be null and void. They wouldn't be worth the ink on the paper and for that fact alone we would respond with nukes.

But I was just around such weapons for four years. What would I know? They are real, they really,really work, and they would be used in defense of an ally with which we have legal requirements.

 

[DarthAmerica]

US Response

The US would most likely respond with a limited nuclear strike against the offending nations WMD infrastructure and offensive war making capability. Additional strikes, nuclear or non-nuclear, would also be directed at the enemy command authority. Review CONPLAN 8022 and NSPD-17.

 

[Cootamundra]

Darth, welcome to DT, will you be arc'ing up in debate just as you do over at Strat Page? As far as I'm aware there is no FS around so you may not need to hit the launch button so often....
Cheers, Coota

 

[DarthAmerica]

Darth, welcome to DT, will you be arc'ing up in debate just as you do over at Strat Page? As far as I'm aware there is no FS around so you may not need to hit the launch button so often....
Cheers, Coota

Thanks for the welcome! I observe this forum a lot. Its very impressive. I plan to participate more often as I find topics of interest or issues I can provide insight on. As you know, nuclear warfare is a favorite topic of mine.

 

[Snayke]

I don't know for sure if the US would respond with nuclear forces, but conventional forces definately. Infact, I'm sure China would genuinely be offended by such actions as they have major interests in Australian uranium to fuel their growing economy.

Heck, I think there would probably be a force to topple that nation's government as it has clearly displayed its will to use nuclear weapons on an innocent target. Just my opinion though.

But I would definately go for air strikes while preparing an offensive campaign. What nation would be the launcher? Just need an example so we can see where to launch conventional forces from.

 

[abramsteve]

Any form of retaliation would have to result in a change in the 'leadership' of the offending country. I dont think anything less would be acceptable. I wonder though, if outrage would lead to nuclear retaliation? I know that if my finger were on the button it would :mad2 but could cooler heads lead to a more conventional retaliation

 

[DarthAmerica]

Just Read the Doctrine

I don't know for sure if the US would respond with nuclear forces, but conventional forces definately. Infact, I'm sure China would genuinely be offended by such actions as they have major interests in Australian uranium to fuel their growing economy.

Heck, I think there would probably be a force to topple that nation's government as it has clearly displayed its will to use nuclear weapons on an innocent target. Just my opinion though.

But I would definately go for air strikes while preparing an offensive campaign. What nation would be the launcher? Just need an example so we can see where to launch conventional forces from.

There is no guess work here. Read the OFFICIAL US POLICY in regard to WMD attacks on allies. There is no ambiguity in the language. You can also read JP 3-12 as well. The most likely response would be a US Nuclear Strike. It would be the most effective, least costly, quickest and in the long term less destructive form of retaliation.

You also have to consider the political consequences of not using a nuke. Many governments that could develop nuclear weapons dont because they live under the umbrella of a nuclear benefactor. So a nuclear attack on a US ally is in effect nuclear war by proxy on the United States. If the US doesnt respond in kind then you will have nuclear powers popping up over night to ensure their own deterant. Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea and Germany immediately come to mind as overnight nuclear powers. There are many others as well.

Simply put, it would be irresponsible not to use nukes in response.

 

[Aeurix]

First off, this was an excellent question. I've spoken with an officer here at the military base I work at and here's the jist of what he said:

It really depends on which country launches the attack. If the nuke came from north korea, I was informed the response would be nuclear and on a apocolyptic level. If the state that the ICBM or missle was launched from was a smaller nation or a radical state where the majority of the originating country disagreed or were unaware of the launch, then conventional means would be the solution (f-22, tanks, ground troops).

The officer i spoke with hinted that nuclear war or nuclear retailiation would only be the result of a totally insane or unreasonable nation launching the first attack. North korea was the only one that he could think of, but I'm sure there are a few more out there (Iran? Pakastan?).

I hope this has been somewhat informative. Great discussion,

-Aeurix

 

[TheDefender]

You can clearly see that if someone attacks the World Trade Tower then what happens to them, two nations have been attacked.The Afghanistan was been attacked with a reason but there wasnt any strong reason to attack Iraq.US can have any reason from it self if it wants to attack any country in the world and if it desnt want to attack any country then it can say that they have missile which have much range to attack US cities and US citizens would suffer from that.


US would attack that nation with its bombers and would try to get hold of WDMs.But here the case would not be same the hatered against the US would increase and in responce eastren can make an allience against the US and its allies to save themsleves from further attacks from US, and if something terrible happens then WWIII can start.The US can leave the Afghanistan and Iraq after seeing the allience and then the golden period of east would begin.
(Every rise has a fall one day.)

 

[DarthAmerica]

The Bottom Line

The bottom line and ultimate answer to this question if you believe the OFFICIAL U.S. Policy on WMD attacks on allys is that 9 out of 10 times the offending nation will be retaliated on with Nuclear Weapons with the exceptions being METT-TC dependent. For review google up OPLAN 8022, JP 3-12 and NSPD-17. You can also refer to numerous press briefings where 3 POTUS's, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II have all tacitly acknowedged that the U.S. regards WMD attacks on allies as no different from WMD attacks on the U.S. and would respond accordingly. The three documents and press briefings will confirm what I have typed.


Thanks
DA

 

[Michael RVR]

You also have to consider the political consequences of not using a nuke. Many governments that could develop nuclear weapons dont because they live under the umbrella of a nuclear benefactor. So a nuclear attack on a US ally is in effect nuclear war by proxy on the United States. If the US doesnt respond in kind then you will have nuclear powers popping up over night to ensure their own deterant. Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea and Germany immediately come to mind as overnight nuclear powers. There are many others as well.

Simply put, it would be irresponsible not to use nukes in response.

Good point there, I can't say i disagree with that one.

Will have to take a look at the docs you mentioned, Cheers

 

[EmperorNortonII]

This is getting only slightly off-topic, but wouldn't a large-scale biological or chemical weapon attack as retailiation be a bit more prudent?

 

[DarthAmerica]

This is getting only slightly off-topic, but wouldn't a large-scale biological or chemical weapon attack as retailiation be a bit more prudent?

By who? the US doesnt officially use those types of weapons.

 

[Analyst]

I would tend to think that a nuclear attack on an ally of the U-S would not necessarly bring neclear retaliation. I think there are many factors that need to be specified in this scenario, such as, but not limited to:

1-Wheter the attacking country us itsekf under the umbrella of a nuclear power.

2-The scope of the initial attack and the number of casaulties. (In the initial post, the hypothesis was and ICBM attack on a single city with a low-yield weapon (150 KT, if I recall correctly); This would bring a massive amount of casualties, but the damage would be somewhat localised.

3-The type of weapon

4-Wheter there was an escalation of tensions between the two countrier and the U-S position on that specific situation.

5-What would be the U-S perception of using or not using nuclear weapons as a response, and wether there would be any response.

With all due respect, I would not put so much importance on past statement of the executive branch. Such statement are definitly non-binding, especially when it comes to declare war and using WMD. Military and diplomatic planners would certainly asses the situation and would not stick blindly to doctrinal beliefs.

Respectfully,